The Telecom Digest for August 15, 2010
Volume 29 : Issue 220 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:17:20 -0700
From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Do rate centers cross state lines?
Message-ID: <i429vg$b2n$1@news.eternal-september.org>
On 8/11/10 6:11 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
> Steven wrote:
>> On 8/9/10 3:30 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>> On the other side of that coin Zerox had a major facility on the east
>>> side of Pasadena, California. The main building was in GTE terriotry,
>>> formerly CWT territory. GTE built a new C.O. close by hopping to get
>>> Zerox to buy their SxS "centrex" system. This was mid-1970s when Pacific
>>> Bell, that served most of Pasadena had cut over to 1ESS several office
>>> codes, which served a smaller part of Zerox's facility on the west side
>>> of the street across from the main building. Zerox subscribed to Pacific
>
> I didn't know they had bought most of that gear. Perhaps they used it
> until the advent of Pasadena Pacific Bell ESS Centrex. I recall that Pac
> Bell was fairly conservative in deploying the 1ESS until they had
> Centrex working quite well.
>
> BTW, two friend of mine (brothers) built several of those GTE CO
> building including Hastings as I recall. I know they built the
> replacement building after the Sylmar earthquake.
>
What buildings did they build. The Sylmar CO was intact and they just
put some really large poles in the ground. I started with CWT in 1967
as the merger was completed. I was on the force that rebuilt the CO.
We used the Pacoima CO to wire the equipment and placed them on
transporters and sent to Sylmar. I have a VHS of it that I moved to DVD
a few years ago, it shows how it was done and an over view of the
damage, it was done by GTE, looking at the DVD and seeing me at age 22
years. I was leading a bunch of temps so I was seen in a lot of the tape.
--
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2010 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:40:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: TW Cable CEO: Programmers Oppose Smaller Channel Bundles
Message-ID: <i42ba5$11et$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <4C644AC7.9060707@annsgarden.com>,
Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> quotes a Dow Jones article
reporting a statement by the CEO of Time Warner Cable:
>| Britt said he isn't calling for a la carte pricing, which would
>| allow customers to tailor their own channel lineup and pay for
>| just the networks they want. He said such a scheme wouldn't work
>| in favor of consumers
I'm really curious about this (oft-repeated) claim, and where I can
find some actual evidence to support it. Currently on my TiVo, I have
about 170 of the 200-odd channels I receive programmed out. (Of
course, if I had a Comcast box instead of a TiVo, I couldn't do that!)
Yet, because of tiering, I still have to pay about $80 a month. How
much would 30 channels actually cost? (My only previous reason for
opposing mandatory a-la-carte has now been eliminated by cablecos
encrypting all of the basic tier.) What if I were permitted to turn
down broadcast-basic channels that I don't watch but which demand high
retrans-consent fees?
Clearly the elimination of hidden cross-subsidies would drive some
specialty channels with minuscule audiences and poor business models
out of business entirely. Would this be a bad thing? Perhaps, if the
half-dozen or so program providers[1] were actually forced to compete
with each other, the result might actually lower consumers' costs --
and it might be the only way for the cable ecosystem to compete
effectively with independent program producers bypassing their
distribution channels entirely. (I know several people who subscribe
to data but not video service, and get all of their video
entertainment from Netflix.)
-GAWollman
[1] Time Warner, NBC Universal, News Corp., Liberty Media, Viacom,
Discovery Communications, Disney... anyone else who counts?
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (2 messages)
|
| |
or 